Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMARSi Project Aims To Have Robots Learn Jobs From Co-workers

Posted by Soulskill on from the your-days-are-numbered dept.

Lanxon writes "Robots of the future will be capable of learning more complex behaviors than ever before if a new, pan-European research project succeeds in its goal of developing the world's first architecture for advanced robotic motor skills, reports Wired. If successful, the four-year AMARSi (Adaptive Modular Architecture for Rich Motor Skills) project could see a manufacturing world filled with autonomous, intelligent humanoid worker bots that can learn new skills by interacting with their co-workers."

9 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Re:flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and another thing,

    that costs thousands plus maintenance

    I have a feeling that a nuclear power plant could provide energy for 100 robot workers more efficiently than a few acres of farmland + living space + human-livable-environment conditions (sewage management, etc...) could provide for 100 human workers.

  2. Dealing with Abundance by headkase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What are we going to do once we move all of our manufacturing and service sectors over to robots? There won't be much work left for humans to do. We will either enter a ghetto like state where everyone lives on the street and the people who own the robots live well or we will enter some sort of communist utopia where all human needs are automatically fulfilled as needed. Its not that unimaginable, the Star Trek future is a communist utopia which is also a military dictatorship albeit a benevolent one.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Dealing with Abundance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      These robots, and all future conceivable improved versions can only do boring menial tasks. If you don't know of any jobs that aren't boring menial tasks then you don't know much about working life.

      Take farming. The back-breaking work of sowing seeds is long gone, automated away. Already in some places the tedious but easier work of driving the vehicle that sows seeds is being automated. But still, a farmer sits in a farmhouse (albeit a more comfortable one) and plans what to sow based on expert knowledge about the suitability of the land and projected markets. This type of stuff was always the really important bit of being a farmer anyway - but it's just more obvious once robots do all the tedious stuff.

      So the future has less coal miners, ditch diggers, window cleaners, and so on, but it continues to need scientists, writers, judges, architects ...

      We do have a labour problem in this scenario, but it's a bit more nuanced than you imagine. The problem is - what do you do with the unskilled? When machines do all the tedious menial work, all the jobs are for skilled workers. A sizeable fraction of your population have nothing useful to contribute to the economy. What do you do with them?

    2. Re:Dealing with Abundance by Metasquares · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Educate them.

  3. Another "train your replacement" scam by pongo000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like a high-tech version of the current "train your replacement" scam where employers have you train the young, foreign-born, low-wage worker that is slated to take over your job when you're laid off. I'd like to see how the labor unions respond to this one.

    1. Re:Another "train your replacement" scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The unions are small C conservative. Their objective is to have society change as little as possible and as slowly as possible, on the basis that their members stand only to lose from a better world. As a result any right-thinking person ends up an enemy of the unions, because they want to see progress, and that's contrary to the interests of the union.

      The worst thing about this is that even when the unions get their way, they don't really achieve their goals - you keep your unionised workers sat on their backsides in the factory for a couple of years, confident that the union will protect them from people who think it could produce a hundred times more stuff with a tenth the people in a fraction of the space... and then one day the owners announce that the factory is closing, it can't compete with the smaller faster more automated factories and so you'll have no job at all.

      Once upon a time the unions served other purposes, they protected their members from poor working conditions, campaigned for safety improvements, even provided social security. But the government absorbed all those functions in most industrial countries, leaving the unions just to organised protests against progress. No thanks.

  4. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I saw this story a while back, and it's (somewhat) relevant to the idea of replacing humans with robots -- beginning with management.

    http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

  5. Re:flamebait? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Meatbots are error-prone, less efficient at repetitive tasks, can't run 24/7 without dying hence require multiple shifts, etc.

    The same factors that make primitive robots profitable now will make increasingly more sophisticated robots profitable in future. As for employing the Third World, shipping takes time and costs money, Third World countries are notoriously corrupt, and they can't (as easily) steal IP they don't have access to.

    Better to have in-sourced robots than outsourced meatbots.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  6. Re:They're unreliable, and often outright liars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Looking back, we could have hired some American college students to do the job just as cheaply, probably several times faster, and actually gotten something working in the end.

    That's what your company should have done too. Not to mention the many unemployed recent grads here in the U.S. that desparately need work and can't find any. (Think of the college loans to be paid, etc.) Now if only somebody could convince the people running the show that H.R. needs to remove the "experience" bullshit barrier, you'd have no problems finding people practically in your backyard who are more than qualified to do the work. You'd be surprised how many people would rather keep their brain sharp and put a notch on their belt relating to the field of study rather than work at a burger joint or big box store while their hard-earned degree remains useless. (Of course retaining such people becomes trickier if the work environment is more toxic than a burger joint or big box store at similar wages, or if better opportunities come up once desired experience is gained. In other words: treat people well, and you get what you pay for.)

    As the situation stands now, who's actually able to get experience and be available at the pay employers are offering? Unless somebody has a diploma-mill degree, it should mean something and be qualification enough to be eligible for the job. If you really need to narrow it down more, do some testing during applicant screening. Despite the new-hire process cost, your quality will go up since pretty resumes don't mean much anyways - they're just the evolutionary result of ridiculous and stupid HR screening. A guy with a mostly blank resume is just as likely to be better at the job if he tests well.